Research On Judicial Cognizance Of Non-Material Harm Result Of Malfeasance Crime

As one of the harmful consequences of dereliction of duty,the non-material harmful consequences have already reached a consensus.How to use specific and clear ways to identify the non-material harmful consequences has long been explored by academia.However,there is no consensus on the criteria for determining the nonmaterial harmful consequences,and it can not accurately guide the application of the non-material harmful consequences in judicial practice.So in judicial practice,the process of identifying the non-material harm results is in short,the judgment has been basically passed by,and the unified standard of identifying the non-material harm results can not be formed.As a result,the identification of non-material harm results in dereliction of duty crime is in a passive state.In investigating and dealing with dereliction of duty,material harm results are preferred,while the role of non-material harm results is neglected.How to determine the result of non-material harm is a difficult problem in the theoretical circle,but also a hot issue in the judicial practice circle.Therefore,this paper mainly studies the identification of the non-material harm results of dereliction of duty crime.This paper is mainly divided into four parts:The first part summarizes and analyses the current academic research on the results of intangible hazards,summarizes the problems in academic research,and expounds the author's writing methods and ideas.In the current academic research,the status of intangible hazard results as the prosecution standard of malfeasance crime has long been affirmed,but there is no consensus on the determination standard of intangible hazard results,which can not correctly guide the application of intangible hazard results in judicial practice.The second part elaborates on the way to identify the non-material harm results in judicial practice,summarizes how to specifically identify the non-material harm results of malfeasance crimes in judicial practice,and analyses some problems in current judicial practice,and analyzes the causes of the problems.In judicial practice,due to the simple and abstract provisions of law and judicial interpretation on the results of non-material hazards and the abstract nature of non-material hazards themselves,there is a lack of uniform standards of identification in the process of judicial application,so that the judicial organs at all levels and regions have different grasp and understanding of the results of non-material hazards,and even the phenomenon of different crimes in the same case and different penalties for the same crime occurs.At the same time,the adjudicative documents on the determination of the results of non-material hazards among different regions and levels are also lack of rationality.The third part elaborates on the way to determine the non-material harm result of dereliction of duty crime.Based on the judicial practice of the non-material harm result and the academic theory,it expects to explore a reasonable way to identify the non-material harm result.Starting from the purpose of setting up the crime of dereliction of duty in criminal law,this part clarifies the boundary between general dereliction of duty and dereliction of duty by analyzing whether dereliction of duty has serious social harmfulness and seriously interferes with the work of government organs.By analyzing the relationship and boundary between various non-material losses,it expounds the relationship between non-material losses and "causing adverse social impact",and puts forward non-material hazards accordingly.The concrete thinking of the result determination.According to the concrete thinking of the determination of the results of non-material hazards and the content of judicial practice,this paper expounds the connotation and extension of the results of non-material hazards,which provides a theoretical basis for the determination of the results of non-material hazards.Subsequently,it summarizes the common objective ways to determine the results of non-material hazards in judicial practice,and combines the above contents to analyze the objective ways of "petition" and "media reporting",and extracts the quantitative means that can be concretely operated.The fourth part,through the retrospect of three specific cases,makes an analysis of the rationality of the identification method of intangible hazards.